Kerala High Court
Iudgment vs Sathyan Pillai & Anr on 11 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COI'RT OF KERAI,A AT ERNAICUIIA}4
PRESET.iIT
THE HONOI'RABLE MR.J('STTCE N.A}IIL KUMAR
THURSDAY' THE 11TE DAY OF E:EBRUARY 2O2L / 2Zt*o !acHA,L942
RSA.No.1022 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JI'DGMET.IT AI{D DECREE IN AS 63/20L7 OF ST'B
coItRT AT PttNALItR, KOLLAM.
AGAITiIST TEE .TUDGMENT AI{D DECREE ITi[ Og L7O/2OO9 OE
MTNSIFF COIIRT, PUNALUR
APPELI,AIflT/APPELI,AI{T / PLAIIflI TE'F :
MT'RAIEEDB.ARJAI\T PILLAI,
AGED 68 YE:ARS
s/o. pIrrr.AI, ldAlnt BEAVA!{ (PUIHENVEEDU}
SAT.IKARA
I4ATERA MIRI, KLETAVAJ,OOR VTLLAGE, pItNALItR
TAII'K.
BY ADVS.
SRI.AUGUSTTNE .TOSEPB
sRr.K.s.RocKEy
SRI . TONY AUGUSTTNE
SRI.GEORGE RENOY
SRI. S.DILEEP
RESPO}TDEI{TS /RESPONDE}ITS./DEFENDANTS :
1 SATEYAI{ prtr,Al ,S/O @pAr,A prLr,AI, AGED 67 ,
TETTNDILAZEIKATEU PIIIHEN \ZEEDU, t4ATgRA MIIRI,
KARAVATOOR VILLAGE, PINALUR TALttK - 691 333
2 SHEEI,A SATHYAI{,
w/o.sATEYeI\r PILLAT,AGED 60 ,
TEIIIDILAZEIKATEU PUTEEN VEEDU, MATERA MtRr,
KARAVATOOR VTLLAGE, pIrNALttR TAttrK. - 591 333
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE
VARGHE SE ( PERI'MPALLIKATIYIL )
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.DITEEP
RSA.No.1022 OF 2019
..2..
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI . P. iTOE PAUL
''. G. GEORGE
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI . RA.'AN
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.MAI.IU SRINATE
TEIS REGUI,AR SECOND APPEJAI, EAVING BEEN FINAI,LY EEARD
oN LL.O2.2O2L, THE COITRT ON TEE SAME DAY DELr\TERED THE
FOLTOIIING:
RSA.No.1022 OF 2019
..3..
IUDGMENT
Dated this the Lltr day of Febmary 2O2t
I.A.No.L of 202L, a compromise under Order )fiIII
Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is filed by both the
appellant and respondents.
2. The suit was flled by the appellant against the
respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction
restraining them from taking possession of plaint B
schedule pathway and enclosing it with a gate and
mandatory injunction directing them to remove the gate
put up by them since the institution of the suit.
3. The respondents who are the defendants filed a
written statement along with a counter claim.
4. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 13.09.2017
dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff and
allowed the counter claim raised by the
respondents/defendants. The decree in both the suit and
counter claim were taken in appeal by the
RSA.No.LO22 OF 2019
..4..
appellant/plaintiff before sub court, punalur. The
sub
Court, Punalur by judgment dated 1,7.07.201g
dismissed
A.s.No.63 of z0t7 confirming the decree of the Trial
Court.
5.
During the pendency of this appear, both the
parties negotiated the matter out of court and
an
amicable settlement was arrived at. The parties have
resolved their dispute, in accordance with the terms
and
stipulations contained in the compromise. Recording
the
compromise, this RSA stands disposed of. The terms
of
the compromise and the plan appended thereto will form
part of the decree.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
closed. This Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
sd/_
NANIL KUI\,IAR
JUDGE
kki
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT
ERNAKULAM
R.S.A.No. LO22 of 2019
Muraleedharan Pillai : Appellant
Vs.
Sathyan Pillai & anr : Respondents
MEMO
' -- ,-\lJvvE appeal is
Above ctPPLql challenging the judgments and decrees of the
filed vrrerrvrrvrrr!
lJ rrrvv
tt
|l
courts below restraining the appellant to use the only pathway to his
' house through the plaint 'B' schedule pr:operty. Now the parties have
.
. settled the issue out of court and acc<trdingly documents being executed
between the appellant and respondents about the right of pathway
.c throuqh the'B' schedule ProPertY.
In the above circumstances it is prayed that the above R.S.A may
.:. be dismissed as not Pressed
Dated this the 14th day of January, 202-I
a (
tA
\,
.,Ir-rlY\/[4?h
AuguStine JosePh
' Counsel for the aPPellant
\"'
Pre.on z L4.OL.2O2I
BEFORE THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM
R.S.A.No . Llzzof 2O19
Appellant :
Muraleedharan Pillai
Respondents:
v,l,"t
tW
f 4t'\a'at
Augustine Joseph (A-384)
S.Dileep (D-76)
K.S.Rockey (R-937)
Tony Augustine T-306 &
George Renoy (G-574)
Counsel for the appellant
a?
Pre:0)10212021
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KEMLA AT ERNAKULAM
i
I.A.No. l of 202L
In
R.S.A.No. L022 of 2019
o Muraleedharan Pillai Petitioner/Appellant
Vs
Sathyan Pillai & Another Respondents/ Respondents
COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER }XIII RULE 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
e + |-ilgsY
c t fil,D l,-'
o
K*\
M/s George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil (G 125) (1V566/1996)
A.R. Dileep (D 196) (1V700/1998)
P. J. Joe Paul (J 1331) (V708/e01s)
Manu Srinath (M 1235) (Dll420l2CI1il)'&
Rajan G. George (R 3289) (q3
Advocates
C'
28, Katticaran
ochi-18
h^o 1 "s4b
ow'
W"_
?
O^ t bD )., u V"{r,
d Pt Kro,a u *'w t&- vw"
c,w,nA s
Kxrrt^
:W.[9 ccr^zz(1
62"e7^.a<4/*-/
o
Se$<& ,^"v4
tr^
o
BEFORE THE HONOUMBLE HIGH COURT OF KEMLA AT ERNAKUI.AM
I.A.No. I\ of 2021
In
R.S.A.No. L022 of 2019
Muraleedharan Pillai : Petitioner/Appellant
Vs
o Sathyan Pillai& Another : Respondents/ Respondents
INDEX
Sl. CONTENTS Pages
No. Nos.
1. Compromise Petition 1-5
2. oo[i'.r'l - Plan prepared by Mr. Abhilash T. 6
Dated this the 27th day of January , 2021.
,u)/
/(\
Counsel for the respondents/respondents
BEFORE THE HONOUMBLE HIGH COURT OF KEMLA AT ERNAKUI.AM
I.A.No. \ ot 2o2L
In
R.S.A.No. L022 of 2019
Petitioner/Appel la nt:
Muraleedharan Pillai,
S/o Sankara Pillai,
Ivlanu Bhavan(Puthenveedu), lviathra Muri,
Karavaloor Village, Punalur Taluk
o
Respondents/ Respondents :
1. Sathyan Pillai, aged 60 years, S/o Gopala Pilai, Thundilazhikathu
Puthen Veedu, Mathra Muri, Mathra P.O., Karavaloor Village,
Punalur Taluk - 691 333
2. Sheela Sathyan, aged 54 years, Wo Sathyan Pillai,
Thundilazhikathu Puthen Veedu, Mathra Muri, Mathra P.O.,
Karavaloor Village, Punalur Taluk - 691 333
COMPROMISE PETMON FILED UNDER ORDER )CfiII RULE? READ WITH
SECNON 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908
Petitioner and respondents herein are the Appellant and Respondents
respectively in the above appeal. The above appeal arises out of the
judgment dated L7.07.20L9 in A.S.No.63lL7 on the file of the Couft of
Subordinate Judge, Punalur which in turn,arises out of the judgment dated
L3.Og.2Ot7 in O. S. No. 170/2009 on the file of the Munsiffs Coutt, Punalur.
The said suit was filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents herein
for perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining them from taking possession of
B Schedule pathway and enclosing it with a gate and mandatory injunction
directing them to remove the gate put up by them since the institution of the
suit.
The defendants in the suit, who are the respondents herein entered
appearance and filed a written statement along with a counter claim. In the
counter claim, the defendants sought for declaration of title and possession
o over the counter claim schedule item No. 1 and right of way over counter
claim schedule item No. 2 pathway and an injunction against the counter
claim defendant/plaintiff against trespass over item 1 & 2 and also putting up
fencing along with the eastern and western boundaries thereof. The Trial o
Court vide its judgment dated 13.09.2017, dismissed the suit filed by the
petitioner/plaintiff and allowed the counter claim raised by the
respondents/defendants. The decree in both the suit and counter claim were
carried in Appeal by the petitioner/plaintiff before the Sub Couft, Punalur. The
Sub Couft, Punalur vide its judgment dated t7.07.20L9 dismissed AS No.
631L7 confirming the decree and judgment of the Trial Court. The petitioner
/plaintiff carried the matter in Appeal before this Honourable Court.
During the pendency of the above appeal, at the interuention of well
wishers and relatives, the parties herein negotiated the matter for an
amicable settlement of the dispute which have arises for consideration in the
above litigation and consequently the pafties entered into an agreement
whereby they have resolved the matter in dispute. Thus the pafties have
resolved and thus agreed that the appeal may be disposed of on the following
terms;
i) That the petitioner and respondents (plaintiff and defendants
respectively in the suit) mutually agree to put up a gate at the
entrance of the pathway leading to their respective propefties
A
ase '
rx/.57
\r
from Mathra Junction - Nedumala Junction Road. The petitioner
herein will bear the expenses for putting up the said gate and
both the parties agree to keep one key each in his /her custody
of any lock , if put in the gate. Both the parties agree that none
of them will make any inconvenience or hindrance to the other
for their easy ingress and egress through the pathway to their
respective propefties. The putting up of the gate will be done
within one month from the date of decree to be passed on the
basis of this Compromise Petition.
o
ii) The petitioner and his successors-in-interest are permitted to
use as pathway an extent of 3 cents of property through the
south eastern poftion of the property of the respondents having
a length of 43.40 meters and width of 2.70 meters in
I
continuation of the pathway having a width of 4.50 meters
starting from the western Mathra Junction - Nedumala Junction
Road as specifically earmarkedin the plan appended to this
Agreement. The plan prepared by Mr. Abhilash T., Registered
I Engineer Grade A, Reg.No. E.10160/19/EA368ZKLM,
Department of Urban Affairs, Government of Kerala as regards
the lie of the respective properties of the petitioner and the
respondents and the pathway starting from the western public
road and particularly showing the 3 cents of property through
which right of way is provided, is appended to this Agreement
and the same shall form part of the Agreement. The
respondents will not raise any claim against the use of the said
poftion of 3 cents through their property as earmarked in the
plan appended to this Agreement. The petitioner and his
successors-in-interest will not have any other right than the
$
right of user of way through the
3 cents of propefi as
earmarked in the above said pfan.
The petitioner has arready
given to the respondents an
amount of Rs.3 Lakhs (Rupees
Three Lakhs onry) in consideration
of the right of way given to
him by the respondents through the
above mentioned 3 cents of
propefi of the respondents as mutually
agreed upon.
iii) The petitioner and respondents agree
that both of them have
right to use the said portion of 3 cents
as pathway for their
access to their respective properties.
The petitioner agrees to o
put up boundary stones to separate
the 3 cents poftion from the
rest of the propery of the respondents
and further agrees that
the respondents shail have every right
to put barbed wire
fencing or compound wail separating
the 3 cents portion of
pathway from their property to protect the sme. The
respondents agree notto obstruct or hinder the right of the
petitioner on his successors-in-interest
to use the 3 cents
propefties as pathway to their property.
This shail be done
within one month from the date of decree
to be passed on the
basis of this Compromise petition.
iv) The respondents agree that they wiil give
necessary statutory
consent to draw erectric rine, water connection
etc. to the
property of the petitioner without
the petitioner obstructing the
use of the pathway, as shown in the plan.
v) Both the petitioner and respondents
agree that the pathway
starting from the western Mathra Junction
- Nedumala Junction
Road shourd be kept intact and without
any obstruction. The
n
{/.
A
rSI/'N/ v
v'
petitioner and respondents agree that the parties are not at
liberty to alter the lie and nature of the above said pathway as
shown in the plan so as to cause any inconvenience to the
other.
vi) The petitioner agrees that he will not raise any claim over any
portion of the property of the respondents in any manner in
future.
vii) The petitioner and respondents agree that in case of any default
o by any party in performing their respective terms of Agreement,
the other party shall be at libefi to enforce the same through
the process of court.
viii) The petitioner and respondents agree to settle all their dispute
arising in the above appeal as mutually agreed upon by them as
per the above terms.
ix) The parties hereby agree that they shall bear their respective
costs in the entire proceedings.
a Dated this the 27h day of January,}OZL.
Petitioner /Appellant Respondents/ Respondents
b
Muraleedharan Pillai Sathyanpiilai
SW'
2. Sheela Sathyan *Y
M
Counsel for the respondents
,R,o)1.*7.
"
4-X"rh^-loe1b. ,A
@qlro\ rro) C!1+"lzo
]'
\
F
F
v
! !
R
s ro
a
s
a
R: \ f>
{ Fil
Eil
\F
rlj {7
l-, rrl Ell
d Fil
R gl 'r
-
Or ..f 3il
.: --..\7- ,OO
o
o
Ell
Etl
q
1 3
-l+'
9o -l
.1:
7 Ell
(-
{
o z
zm Ell
m
z o
o
c
.f 3 Eil
m |-
!= ,u,
c c-
z
lEll
S.EEEE
lElt
T'
tEtl
{ Ita
o o tFil
x r.tr
n (Jr
o
t;il
;
1-
c lFll
v lHl
Fa
t\r{
!
7 tHl
'hf
t'j Hfi
*F
tEl
tHl
tl*tl
N =1 ldl
lfgl
il
--
Va
,\
z_v?.
lcl
s zX
F ? i-m
=2
b,o
no
HH lEl
tzl
rq
aa
t
\ -w 21 l<l
t\| lFl
aa
B 9o lFl
qJ IU
| .-{
S
s if'{ !# IH
lc rtr'/ tk
l>
iP
I
, -J..
IH
IR Itr
IF
t|"*1
l>
t5 =
C
v Ot IF
IA
lv,
l< !l- |- I i-'
lv x'
o
Yz,Ztb
'a'
t- m
m
lx
t>
indo>ir
.a
>o rfl
IF (,
z
7 El
)c>-a -r - tha
o(
-', l7
. d)
r_:'
o.^c)- 2,-^
le-.
>-=
7) l\U t>
t<
7(Dxc! ^)i(n
(
D*
o,
0)
==o 'rT.
rno
.ifna
,ia z t>
IF
Pbi6r r.i
'co. a
o{
-.-.:
iz>
('
tc
IF
